Woman battling installation of smart meters tells her story on radio

February 14, 2013

Writer

Brenda Hawk has been in a long battle with her power company and her sheriffs department over the installation of smart meters. All Brenda wanted from the company was written assurance that these new smart meters are safe and not a hazard, but the company allegedly refused to do so. The story only gets more disturbing from there.

The transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: Next I want to tell you kind of a, I don't know, a 1984 story, if you will, a story of Big Brother, and a story of the little person winning against the machine. At least a temporary battle. Brenda Hawk is a 9/12 project member and she's a woman that lives in Ohio and does not want the smart meter. And she's lived her life the right way. Last October she was told she's going to have to get a smart meter attached to her home, and she said no. She successfully managed to keep the old one until just last week. The CEO of American Electric Power sent her a letter saying, "Too bad, you're getting a smart meter." She has a pacemaker and people have reported problems with pacemakers after getting the smart meters installed. She said, "I don't want it." She is somebody that needs a breathing machine, she's ‑‑ I mean, she's not necessarily the picture of health.

Well, here in the middle of winter they shut her power off and her water. I've never seen anything like it. They shut her power and water off. The sheriff and the power company trucks arrive uninvited and she says to the sheriff, "Are you there to protect my rights?" And he says, "No, I'm here to protect them." She said, "I do not want a smart meter on my house." So they shut her power off. Well, because she's a 9/12 member, the phones at TheBlaze lit up and we found out about Brenda's story, and she spoke to Michael Opelka and she's on the phone with us now to give us the rest of the story. And the kind of happy, I was going to say ending, but middle. Brenda, how are you?

HAWK: Oh, I'm doing fine, Glenn. I ‑‑ it's a great honor to speak with you today.

GLENN: Well, I'm sorry. I wish it was on ‑‑ I wish it was on something else, but tell me about your experience of having the sheriff and the power company come out and put you in your place.

HAWK: Well, it was rather interesting since I had erased my easement with AEP, oh, about ten or twelve years ago due to some tree‑trimming problems and ‑‑

GLENN: Explain ‑‑ hang on just a second. Explain what that means, Brenda.

HAWK: Well, they always had these groups called Asplundh contract with AEP to come trim your trees and they don't trim them. They butcher them to where they ‑‑ they actually make them dangerous and they start dying and that's why they do it that way.

GLENN: Right. They are doing it to keep the power lines clear in case there's snow or wind or something.

HAWK: And unfortunately my trees weren't interfering with their pole. They were 30 feet off their easement even but they said they had a blanket easement to my property. So it made it right that they could even remove my house if they felt it was in the way.

GLENN: That's crazy.

HAWK: I was a little shocked at that. So we had some issues and I found out later on that, studying the law that I could erase my easement with a contract between two parties. So I thought I was safe on this because they haven't returned with the tree trimmers over twelve years and they usually do this every three. And so I informed AEP that, you know, they would need my permission on the land if they did come here. And the issue I had with the meter is that I just wanted a written guarantee. I called PUCO, the whole bit, did everything legally and said that all I wanted was a written guarantee that this meter is safe for my health, my health and my home and for the animals because I've read quite a few things and I wanted the information from them to prove that the meter was safe and to prove what I was reading on the Internet may not be right. They wouldn't give it to me. And so it's quite a shock to see them come last Friday.

GLENN: Did they notify you ‑‑ did they notify you in advance that they were coming?

HAWK: Yeah.

GLENN: But I thought we had cancelled the appointment when I talked to an AEP representative beforehand that I said, I had asked him to send me this information and I had written to the governor of Ohio and my congressman Jim Jordan and it was awaiting, you know, some information or answers from somebody as to whether they could do this or not when they had no easement to my property. And, of course, I hadn't received anything and that was within that week. So it was way too probably fast for anybody to answer me. Jim Jordan's office did contact me and said they were working on it at the local office. And then they called back later in the afternoon and said they found out there's nothing they can do because it's a state issue. So I went, okay. But when the sheriff's department came at 10:00 in the morning, they came with three AEP trucks and when the deputy came to my porch, and I knew to stay on the inside of my enclosed porch with the door locked. Let's just say I've had issues before because of this. And I spoke to the officer, and I'm always very polite to people and I just asked him, like you had stated that, "Are you here to protect my property rights as a citizen of Allen County, or are you here to protect AEP?" And he said, "No, ma'am, I'm not here for you. I'm here for AEP."

GLENN: Boy, I tell you I would do everything I can, and the 9/12 project should do everything they can to make sure that sheriff is voted out.

HAWK: Oh, well, this gets interesting. Let me update you real quick what happened Monday. They did restore my power. I guess they ‑‑

GLENN: Hang on just a second. It's my understanding that within three hours of this being posted on TheBlaze, they were inundated with e‑mails and phone calls and they restored your power. Is that your understanding?

HAWK: Yeah, not until ‑‑ not until 36 hours later, about ‑‑

GLENN: Oh, 36 hours?

HAWK: Yeah. About 5:30 on Friday evening ‑‑ I mean Saturday evening, I'm sorry. So I had to stay awake for 36 hours because if I fall asleep because of my brain injury, it stops my diaphragm from working and without the CPAP type of breathing machine ‑‑ I don't have sleep apnea. It's a brain condition. It's called central apnea. And my brain, if I do fall asleep, the brain just kind of slows down and won't let my diaphragm work.

GLENN: Right. It is a very ‑‑ it is an extraordinarily dangerous medical situation.

HAWK: Condition, yes.

GLENN: And you can die quickly from it. But I understand they laughed at you when you brought that up.

HAWK: Yeah. That was one issue I brought up that I said, you know, there's an Ohio law that states you cannot turn my power off between November 15th and April 15th. And I said, I've paid my bill. And they said, well, that law does not pertain to you, ma'am. And this Mr. Rocco was with this deputy that day. I didn't know who it was at the time, but he was the one pretty well telling me that the law doesn't pertain to me. And I said, oh, you're right. My bill has been paid up to date and I've never missed a payment. So I guess that makes a difference, huh? They were just kind of giggling at me at my expense and they said, well, I'll tell ya, lady, it's either the meter, you take the meter or we take your power. And I said, well, I'll tell you what. If it's about the meter, go ahead and take the analog meter off my house but until you give me a guarantee that the other one's safe, you cannot replace it with the RFM meter. And they said ‑‑ they kind of discussed each other between AEP and the deputy and they said, "Well, it's going to be the power then." They didn't really even want the meter. That was what really fascinated me.

GLENN: I will tell you that, I think there are a lot of people in the power companies that are doing it because it will save them money. And it will. It will save them money. They don't have to go and look at it. But I really, truly believe, and I don't know if you believe this, Brenda, but smart meters in the end are all about control.

HAWK: Right. Right. Yeah, from what I've studied, I understood that pretty well before they showed up.

GLENN: Sure.

HAWK: And yeah, because I ‑‑

GLENN: So what happened on Monday when ‑‑ with the sheriff?

HAWK: Yeah, Monday was very interesting. I just, some friends were kind of concerned about my safety and they said, why don't you call your Allen County sheriff's department and lodge a complaint or file charges against these people. I said, you know, that's probably a good idea. So first thing Monday morning around 8:30 in the morning, I did call the sheriff's department. And they took my report and said they would have a deputy ‑‑ or a sergeant call me back. Well, the sergeant called me back and was extremely rude and disrespectful to me. I mean, he yelled at me up one side and down the other and basically he said I was a criminal, I was shooting at people, I had no right to give anybody ‑‑

GLENN: What the hell kind of sheriff's department do you have?

HAWK: Pardon?

GLENN: What kind of sheriff's department do you have?

HAWK: It's scary. It's really scary.

GLENN: Let me tell you something. Now I sound like a broken record, but Brenda, move to Texas.

HAWK: I wish I could.

GLENN: Jeez.

HAWK: Land here is not selling very well.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, another reason to move to Texas.

HAWK: Tough to leave.

GLENN: Wow. I am sorry, Brenda. Okay. So what is this sheriff's name?

HAWK: The sheriff's name is Sheriff Crish, C‑r‑i‑s‑h.

GLENN: Crish.

HAWK: Yeah, Crish.

GLENN: When is he up for reelection?

HAWK: He was just elected I think a year or so ago. So it's going to be a while.

GLENN: Well, for anybody who is listening that wants to run against him and wants to protect the people of your area, if you're running, I will give you a commercial for free to run against him if you stand for the principles of liberty and the understanding that it is your land. If the sheriffs ‑‑ I will lend my voice to a group of sheriffs that decide that they are going to stand together across the country, and I will do everything I can to empower sheriffs and to make sure that people understand that your sheriff, your local sheriff is the best friend that you have. And any of these sheriffs that decide they are going to go the other way, I'll help ya. I'll help you. You just let me know.

So Brenda, how is this left now?

HAWK: Well, I don't know what happened, but after this sergeant ripped me up one side and down the other and just yelled at me and said, "Lady," never said my name or anything. Just was basically being very rude, he called back about five minutes later. I didn't even recognize the voice. And he said, "Gee, I..." kind of interesting. He said, "It appears that somebody has already filed a complaint and a case with the prosecuting attorney's office and if I wanted the number I could have it and call the prosecuting attorney's office. And he was very calm. I didn't ‑‑ like I said, I didn't recognize his voice. And he actually called me Ms. Hawk at that point. Total turnaround. So ‑‑

GLENN: Before it was "lady"?

HAWK: Yeah, so far as "hey lady" this and "hey lady" that. I don't even want to get into the conversation. It wasn't pleasant. I just sat there and took it. But yeah, so to date I don't know who has done this in my benefit, and I'm extremely grateful to whoever this person is because usually this is what they pull on me: Well, you don't have any rights, so you cannot do any ‑‑ and they definitely basically said he would not allow me to press charges or write up a complaint against anyone in this town. So I was ‑‑ or against AEP for that matter. So I was really shocked.

GLENN: Well, I tell you what, Brenda, we'll do everything we can at TheBlaze to follow the story and to make sure that this sheriff ‑‑ you know, I would like somebody at TheBlaze to do a profile on this sheriff and we'll also find out who filed that lawsuit for you unless they don't want to be exposed. If they don't mind being exposed, we'll let you know who the good‑doer was. Thank you very much. Brenda, you ‑‑

HAWK: Well, thank you, Glenn Beck.

GLENN: You stay in touch with us, all right? You stay in touch with Michael Opelka. These are his kinds of stories. Thank you so much.

HAWK: Thank you.

GLENN: God bless.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep